My gosh, Cathy, we've got problems, haven't we? There's "word" out on the old grape 'n' cable vine that a bunch of Crown Crystal Carnival pieces are being repro'd in China. Is it true? Well, I can't confirm where they are being made, but I can say that I've seen photos of the little berry bowl in amethyst, and I listed a bunch of ways in which it is different from the original CC berry.

And now this clear iridised one! And it's different yet again. It surely isn't an original. At least it's in a colour that we know isn't genuine old.

But the comport is more of a puzzle and hence a problem. I don't have an original one in my collection to compare it with (we have several CC comports, but not that exact one). I can only compare it with the drawings in the Aussie Carnival book. But I agree with you that the iridescence looks strange. It is very lurid and brash. I think if we were to handle the piece we would know right away, but judging from a photo is very very difficult. I can't even confirm the dimensions given - can you?

The seller also has a master Kingfisher. I've sat and compared every little detail with my old one - and I'm still not certain.

But without a doubt, that little "clear pearl" one is not all it seems.

The pearl is clearly a forgery in so many ways. The bird is wrong, the branch is much thicker, the tail is thinner, and most tellingly, it says RP4184 rather than RD4184. Hilarious.

I haven't got the hobnail and cane pattern - I only collect the coloured depression era and have only a little of the carnival. My gut instinct when I saw it was that it was wrong though. If there was anything I could put my finger on, it would be that it is too shiny and smooth - not just the irridised sections, but underneath on the base as well.

I do know that in the originals the irridisation could be flakey and that one very old collection on the South Coast includes a kingfisher nappy bowl in a gunmetal grey, which is where the irridisation didn't take. This is a treasured piece.

Here is a clear version, which I had thought was fine:

EDIT: On discussions with carnival glass collectors, this item is fine

Cathy - yes, without a doubt the "pearl" piece is a fake. No problems with that one - and as I said, it's odd that it's actually different to the other fake Kingfisher berry that's around.

But that comport is much trickier. Both of my Aussie comports (Butterfly Bower/ Christmas Bells) are iridised on the exterior (one is silvery and the other is much more multicoloured). The iridescence on the upper side of both is packed full of colours. We've had them for almost 20 years so I am sure they are the real thing.

The second of those two items (the one described in the auction as a Northwood Deco centrepiece) is undoubtedly a genuine piece of Classic Carnival. It's a Fenton Persian Medallion bowl with a deep 3 in 1 edge, and is an absolute beauty.

The first one really does look genuine too (the Crown Crystal Shrike). I have compared my Shrike with every detail on that bowl and all seems to match.

The only piece I can say for sure is not a genuine example of old Crown Crystal Carnival is that "pearl" light (almost white) Kingfisher small berry. I also know of a small amethyst version (which is different to the "pearl" one) that is undoubtedly a fake.

The real worry is that we actually don't know what's going on at the moment. The collectors are aware that there are Aussie fakes around, but as we seem to be in the early days of these items being discovered, we don't know what pieces are actually being faked. So every piece has the potential to come under scrutiny.

Have you made those calls to Aussie Carnival collectors, Cathy? What are their thoughts on the current situation?

There are four variations on the kingfisher pattern, two stippled, the twigs are slightly different, sometimes they're surrounded by wattle. Do you have the Carnival Glass of Australia book? If not, I'll post you privately photos from the pages (and my one marigold kingfisher master bowl for comparison).

I know the buyers of bowl B incidentally so I'll have to ask them what they think.

Just a question on the base finish. In the fake (A) on David D's page, it looks almost like the whole base is ground and polished. Is that a trick of the light?

The others flagged seem to be fine, according to everyone I've asked. I'm still nervous because those sellers do have a very high reproduction quotient, and they seem to come up with these things with incredible regularity.

Hi Cathy - thanks for your kind words. Thanks too, for the offer of a pic of your Kingfisher master, but actually we've got a variety of examples of the Kingfishers (berry bowls and master bowls, with and without wattle blossom / stippling) in our collection. We also have a Kookaburra float bowl, which was (amazingly enough) found in the UK.

I do have the Carnival Glass of Australia book - thanks for the offer though, Cathy.

I'm guessing you don't have our "Carnival Glass The Magic & The Mystery" book. In the section on Australian Carnival we included a detailed study and drawings (mine) of the Kingfisher and its variants, as well as the Kookaburra plus an astonishing and rare example of the piece we called the "Kingfisher/Kookaburra Variant". It has what appears to be a kingfisher on it, plus two encircling twigs and in moulded lettering around the bird motif it says AUSTRALIAN KOOKABURRA.

When I did the feature for my website on the Aussie fakes, I toyed with describing the variations in detail, but decided against it, and just made a brief mention of the other version with the wattle sprigs added. I felt that if I started to show the master (and its variant) as well as the berry variant, it could confuse the issue. And as it's only the berry that we are currently certain is appearing as a fake, I just noted that "There is also another old version of this original Kingfisher design that has floral wattle sprigs added" which I hoped would do the trick.

I can't answer your question about the base of the fake that Dave shows. He doesn't have the bowl itself, only the photos. I did explain to him the differences that I could observe between the bases on the fake and the original, and he put my information re. the description on his website.